Genome-wide analysis in over 1 million individuals of European ancestry yields improved polygenic risk scores for blood pressure traits

Hypertension affects more than one billion people worldwide. Here we identify 113 novel loci, reporting a total of 2,103 independent genetic signals (P < 5 × 10−8) from the largest single-stage blood pressure (BP) genome-wide association study to date (n = 1,028,980 European individuals). These associations explain more than 60% of single nucleotide polymorphism-based BP heritability. Comparing top versus bottom deciles of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) reveals clinically meaningful differences in BP (16.9 mmHg systolic BP, 95% CI, 15.5–18.2 mmHg, P = 2.22 × 10−126) and more than a sevenfold higher odds of hypertension risk (odds ratio, 7.33; 95% CI, 5.54–9.70; P = 4.13 × 10−44) in an independent dataset. Adding PRS into hypertension-prediction models increased the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) from 0.791 (95% CI, 0.781–0.801) to 0.826 (95% CI, 0.817–0.836, ∆AUROC, 0.035, P = 1.98 × 10−34). We compare the 2,103 loci results in non-European ancestries and show significant PRS associations in a large African-American sample. Secondary analyses implicate 500 genes previously unreported for BP. Our study highlights the role of increasingly large genomic studies for precision health research.


LD score regression intercepts
In our overall meta-analyses, genomic inflation factors (λ GC ) were calculated and λ GC values were 1.82, 1.76 and 1.70 for SBP, DBP and PP, respectively.We calculated the LD score regression (LDSR) intercepts in our overall GWAS meta-analysis data as well as in the GWAS data remaining after the exclusion of all known BP loci to evaluate whether inflation of our test statistics was a result of polygenicity or residual population substructure (Supplementary Table 2).Attenuation ratios 14 in overall analyses were 0.0884, 0.0844 and 0.0794, while attenuation ratios in the novel partition of our results were 0.0996, 0.0722 and 0.1085 for SBP, DBP and PP, respectively.LDSR intercepts in overall analyses were 1.2254, 1.2037 and 1.1756, while intercepts in the novel partition of our results were 1.0931, 1.0624 and 1.0806 for SBP, DBP and PP, respectively.These LDSR intercepts and attenuation ratios suggest that any observed inflation in our data is caused primarily by polygenicity.

Known loci
Using our data to assign all 3,800 SNPs previously reported for BP traits into loci resulted in the identification of 1,165 independent loci that were ≥1 Mb apart and not in strong LD (r 2 < 0.1) with each other or with known BP loci (Supplementary Table 3).LD pruning resulted in 1,723 pairwise-independent genetic signals from known SNPs (Supplementary Table 4).single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) with a minor allele frequency (MAF) > 1% as the contributing GWAS data focused on common variants.
Our goals were to identify novel BP variants, reveal new biology underlying BP and generate a new BP PRS.Herein, we report the discovery of 113 novel loci for BP traits.The large sample size and current statistical methods increased the SNP-based heritability (h 2 SNP ) of BP traits explained by GWAS variants to >60%.We developed genome-wide BP PRSs and tested these for the prediction of BP traits and hypertension risk in two independent datasets of European and African-American ancestry individuals.
We also applied methods that leverage the statistical precision of the GWAS and independent reference data from cardiovascular tissues to infer relationships between BP traits and gene expression, and we observed evidence of association with BP biology of 500 previously unreported genes.Many of these genes are located in previously mapped regions of the genome but were not identified by nearest-gene annotations in the literature, allowing the scientific yield from BP genetic studies to advance from lists of loci to lists of genes.These analyses provide insights into both the extent to which regulatory effects mediate genetic associations with BP traits as well as a principled data-driven mapping of associated loci with linked biology.This knowledge can be used to identify potential drug targets, develop testable hypotheses in model systems and advance understanding of BP regulation at the level of tissues and systems.

Results
Within our one-stage meta-analysis study of 7,584,058 SNPs in up to 1,028,980 individuals, there are a total of 1,495, 1,504 and 1,318 significant loci (P < 5 × 10 −8 ) from the GWAS of SBP, DBP and PP, respectively (linkage disequilibrium (LD) r 2 < 0.1 and 1 Mb distance; Extended Data Fig. 1).After excluding all known loci and their correlated variants in LD (LD r 2 > 0.1 at ±500 kb) and applying clumping and LD-pruning methods to the remaining SNPs to identify independent loci ≥1 Mb apart and not in strong LD (r 2 < 0.1), we detected sentinel SNPs indexing 113 novel loci for robust signficant association with at least one of the three continuous   Article https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-024-01714-w As many of these known SNPs were previously identified using data contained within our meta-analysis, we did not seek to provide any replication of these published SNPs, but we did use the opportunity provided by our large-scale meta-analysis to present up-to-date and accurate results for the significance and effect estimates of the BP associations of all these SNPs (Supplementary Tables 4-6).Considering the sentinel SNPs of the 1,165 independent known loci, 1,092 of these were covered in our GWAS data, and 963 (88%) of these exact SNPs ) with concordant direction of effect in all available studies after distance-based (±500 kb) and LD (r 2 > 0.1) pruning, identified with SBP as the primary trait.SNPs are ordered by two-sided P value for the most significant BP association in inverse variance-weighted meta-analyses.SNP, dbSNP accession number; CHR:BP, chromosome and build 37 position; Trait, primary BP trait for which the most significant association was observed and for which summary statistics are provided in subsequent columns; for novel loci that reach genome-wide significance (P < 5 × 10 −8 ) for a second trait, this second trait is also listed; Nearest Gene, most proximal gene within 250 kb of sentinel SNP; A1, allele corresponding to measured effect on the outcome; A2, allele not corresponding to measured effect on the outcome; EAF, effect allele frequency in the meta-analysis; Effect, measured effect in the meta-analysis (mmHg); s.e., standard error of the measured effect in the meta-analysis; P value, association P value for the measured effect in the meta-analysis; n eff , effective number of subjects in the GWAS meta-analysis (calculated at study-level as n × SNP imputation quality INFO); P het , value for Cochran's Q test of statistical heterogeneity in the GWAS meta-analysis.

Article
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-024-01714-w ) with concordant direction of effect in all available studies after distance-based (±500 kb) and LD (r 2 > 0.1) pruning, identified with DBP as the primary trait.SNPs are ordered by two-sided P value for the most significant BP association in inverse variance-weighted meta-analyses.SNP, dbSNP accession number; CHR:BP, chromosome and build 37 position; Trait, primary BP trait for which the most significant association was observed and for which summary statistics are provided in subsequent columns; for novel loci which reach genome-wide significance (P < 5 × 10 −8 ) for a second trait, this second trait is also listed; Nearest Gene, most proximal gene within 250 kb of sentinel SNP; A1, allele corresponding to measured effect on the outcome; A2, allele not corresponding to measured effect on the outcome; EAF, effect allele frequency in the meta-analysis; Effect, measured effect in the meta-analysis (mmHg); s.e., standard error of the measured effect in the meta-analysis; P value, association P value for the measured effect in the meta-analysis; n eff , effective number of subjects in the GWAS meta-analysis (calculated at study-level as n × SNP imputation quality INFO); P het , value for Cochran's Q test of statistical heterogeneity in the GWAS meta-analysis.

Article
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-024-01714-wor close proxies (r 2 > 0.8 and <500 kb) reached genome-wide significance in our data and 1,017 (93%) reached genome-wide significance at the locus level (Supplementary Tables 3 and 6), with less significant SNPs corresponding to associations originally reported from analyses of non-European ancestry, exome-chip studies or non-standard analyses that are not main-effect BP-GWAS analyses.Of 298 previously reported SNPs unavailable in our data, 227 (76%) were identified in rare-variant, non-European ancestry and/or in gene-environment interaction analyses.MAF and effect sizes of previously reported SNPs in our meta-analyses are concordant with published results (Supplementary Figs. 4 and 5).

Conditional analysis
Genome-wide conditional analysis of SBP, DBP and PP meta-analyses identified a total of 267 additional independent significant secondary SNPs reaching a significance threshold of P < 5 × 10 −8 in the conditional joint model (Supplementary Table 7).Of the 267 SNPs, 203 secondary SNPs also reached P < 5 × 10 −8 in our primary meta-analyses and 23 mapped to one of our 113 novel BP loci.

GWAS results summary
In summary, we report 1,723 pairwise-independent genetic signals among SNPs previously published for BP, 113 genome-wide significant novel loci from our meta-analyses and 267 additional independent significant secondary SNPs from conditional analysis, yielding a total of 2,103 independent genetic signals across all three BP traits.

Variance explained
Within the independent sample of 10,210 Lifelines participants (who were not included in the discovery GWAS), the genetic risk score (GRS) of our 113 novel loci explained a small but statistically significant proportion of BP variance: 0.06%, 0.08% and 0.02% for SBP, DBP and PP, respectively.Our findings contributed a small gain in the percentage of variance explained (%VE) for SBP, DBP and PP.For example, for SBP, the %VE by GRS increased from 6.77% for the 1,723 previously published SNPs to 6.80% after adding the 113 novel sentinel SNPs, and to 6.93% for all 2,103 independent BP genetic signals after also adding 267 independent secondary SNPs (Table 4).Furthermore, we first constructed a benchmark PRS based on the standard clumping and thresholding procedure for each BP trait (P value threshold, 1 × 10 −3 , 0.01 and 0.01 for SBP, DBP and PP, respectively).These PRSs captured a total of 7.17%, 7.83% and 4.53% of the variance in SBP, DBP and PP, respectively (Extended Data Fig. 3).Second, we calculated BP PRSs using SBayesRC 15 , which integrates GWAS data with functional genomic annotations and has been shown to have better prediction accuracy than other state-of-the-art PRS methods.We observed striking improvements in the percentages of variance explained by the SBayesRC PRS to 11.37%, 12.12% and 7.30% for SBP, DBP and PP, respectively (Table 4).The SBayesRC PRSs were used in all further PRS analyses in the Lifelines (European ancestry) and All-Of-Us (African ancestry) databases.

Association of BP variants in non-European ancestries
When comparing the distributions of allele frequency and effect sizes for the 2,103 independent BP-associated SNPs reported from our European meta-analysis within other ancestries, there was greater concordance within the Japanese population ( Japan Biobank ( JBB); n = 145,000, r = 0.69 and 0.5 correlation of effects, with 79% and 70% concordance in effect direction for known and novel SNPs, respectively) than within an African-ancestry meta-analysis sample (n = 83,890, r = 0.22 and 0.45 correlation, with 65% and 66% concordance for known and novel SNPs) (Extended Data Figs.6 and 7 and Supplementary Table 10).Our novel loci showed weaker concordance than known loci for the Japanese comparisons but higher correlation than known loci for the African comparisons.

Variant functions of novel loci
More than 90% of the novel sentinel SNPs lie within non-coding regions (Supplementary Table 15).One novel sentinel SNP (rs855791) and seven highly correlated SNPs (r 2 > 0.8) are non-synonymous variants in genes at six novel loci: TMPRSS6, GLRX2, RLF, HELQ, ZNF235 and UNC13B; three of these non-synonymous SNPs reside in UNC13B (Supplementary Table 16).

Overlap of novel loci across BP traits and with other traits
Across all 113 novel loci, we see concordance in the associations across the three BP traits (Supplementary Figs.7 and 8), especially between SBP and DBP and between SBP and PP, which are known to be the more highly correlated BP trait pairs, so this is consistent with previous observations 4,5,7 .The Pearson correlation values for comparison of the effect estimates across all 113 novel loci are r = 0.82 for SBP vs DBP; r = 0.83 for SBP vs PP; and r = 0.37 for DBP vs PP.Nine of the 113 novel loci are genome-wide significant for a second BP trait in addition to their primary associated trait (as indicated in Tables 1-3).
Shared associations with at least one other disease trait reported within the GWAS Catalog or PhenoScanner database were observed for 41 out of the 113 novel loci; that is, sentinel SNPs and all SNPs in high LD (r 2 > 0.8).
The novel locus with the most shared associations was MCHR2-AS1, which has significant associations with seven disease or trait categories: anthropometric, reproductive, lipids, thyroid, cardiovascular, neurological and metabolic.Other loci showed associations with hematological traits (for example, hemoglobin, red blood cell count, white blood cell count, and so on), immune system (for example, inflammation, allergy, autoimmune, and so on), respiratory traits (for example, vital capacity, expiratory volume, expiratory flow, and so on) and minerals (for example, iron metabolism) (Extended Data Fig. 9 and Supplementary Table 17).

Inferred gene expression and colocalization analysis
Applying S-PrediXcan analysis to infer the effects of genetically predicted gene expression on BP traits, we identified 5,538 statistically significant gene-tissue combinations that are genetically predictive of BP traits (Supplementary Table 18 and Supplementary Fig. 9).These combinations correspond to 1,873 unique genes, of which 569 (30%) have been identified by nearest-gene mapping of previously reported BP SNPs or novel sentinel SNPs identified in our meta-analyses.A total Table is sorted by minimum P value across all GWAS meta-analyses.Selection criteria: evidence from S-PrediXcan analysis and nearest-gene mapping of sentinel SNPs from GWAS meta-analysis.Gene, gene was significant in genetically predicted gene expression analysis using S-PrediXcan for aorta, tibial artery, left ventricle, atrial appendage and whole blood tissues and was annotated using ANNOVAR as the gene nearest the sentinel SNP at that locus.SNP, sentinel SNP from GWAS meta-analyses for each independent locus.GWAS P min , minimum P value across all inverse variance-weighted GWAS meta-analyses.GWAS Trait min , BP trait corresponding to the GWAS P min .Prior TWAS indicates whether the association was replicated in the previous S-PrediXcan analysis 4 (where TWAS (transcriptome-wide association study) here refers to an inferred gene expression analysis using S-PrediXcan).TWAS indicates the direction of effect for significant associations in the SBP, DBP and PP S-PrediXcan analyses in aorta, tibial artery, left ventricle, atrial appendage and whole blood tissues, respectively; if the gene met the posterior probability threshold of ≥90% for colocalization of SBP, DBP and PP association and gene expression in aorta, tibial artery, left ventricle, atrial appendage and whole blood tissues, a small superscript (*) at the right of each arrow is shown.DGI, drug-gene interaction column summarizing if there are available drugs targeting genes that were identified (¥) according to the following databases: Guide to Pharmacology Interactions, DTC, DrugBank, JAX-CKB, My Cancer Genome, PharmGKB, Clearity Foundation Clinical Trials, TDG Clinical Trials, TALC, TTD, TEND and/or ChEMBL Interactions.a Indicates whether gene expression was positively associated (↑), negatively associated (↓), or non-significant (−) in S-PrediXcan analyses.

Article
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-024-01714-w of 468 (25%) unique genes were previously identified in the equivalent S-PrediXcan and colocalization analyses 4 .We identified 1,029 (55%) unique genes in this analysis that have not previously been reported in BP-GWAS (Supplementary Table 18).The majority of associations were observed in arterial tissues (n = 1,503 for tibial artery; n = 1,205 for aorta).Associations were evenly distributed across all three BP traits (n = 1,851 for SBP; n = 1,962 for DBP; n = 1,725 for PP).Additionally, we used COLOC to identify the subset of significant genes for which there was a high posterior probability that a SNP in the S-PrediXcan model for each gene exhibited colocalized association with both gene expression and changes in quantitative measures of BP traits.This analysis refined our S-PrediXcan analysis by characterizing the contribution of underlying expression quantitative trait loci (eQTLs) within our gene models to the observed S-PrediXcan associations.We detected 2,793 gene-tissue pairs in which there was a statistically significant S-PrediXcan association with at least one BP trait and high posterior probability (PP.H 4 > 0.9) of colocalization, corresponding to a total of 1,070 distinct genes (642, 431 and 647 genes for SBP, DBP and PP, respectively).Of these 1,070 genes, 500 (47%) have not been previously annotated for SNP associations with BP traits.

Druggable targets from transcriptome-wide association studies and colocalization results
We collated evidence for genes that mapped to our novel sentinel SNPs or mapped to our secondary SNPs but did not map from our primary GWAS or previous GWAS.We then found the intersection with genes that were significant in our inferred gene expression analyses and highlighted noteworthy examples (Table 5).We identified 38 genes satisfying this criterion, including an established drug target for BP medications (ADRA1A) and five genes targeted by other approved drugs (Supplementary Table 19).

Pathway analyses
We input all 1,070 significant genes from S-PrediXcan and colocalization analyses into downstream enrichment analyses using FUMA 17 (Supplementary Figs.10-13 and Supplementary Tables 20-23).Results for tissue specificity were similar across all BP traits, with high enrichment in cardiovascular tissues (heart, arterial and whole blood), as expected, and in brain tissues of the central nervous system, given that hypertension associates with sympathetic nervous system activity.Enrichment in liver and pancreas tissues may be representative of the broader pleiotropy of BP genes and cardiometabolic diseases.The pathway analyses reveal a total of 4,617 unique significant terms (adjusted P < 0.05) across 20 different databases of functional annotations, boasting the complex biology of BP regulation.Some newly identified gene ontology annotations, not overlapping with pathway analysis results from previous BP studies, which are robustly reported across all BP trait input genes, include endoplasmic reticulum stress, carbohydrate and/or lipid metabolism, cell polarity, response to UV, DNA damage, autophagy, apoptotic mitochondrial envelop changes and (metal) ion transport.

Discussion
In the largest single-stage common-variant GWAS of BP to date including more than one million European-ancestry adults, we report >2,000 independent BP signals from known and 113 novel loci as well as new secondary signals.The richness of results permitted the creation of PRSs that captured substantial interindividual variation in BP traits.These full PRSs are publicly accessible and can be used by the global research community to explore the contributions of BP to a variety of health outcomes.
This GWAS provides additional insights into the genetic contribution of BP and suggests that expansions of statistical power will continue to yield the discovery of additional loci primarily harboring common variants with smaller effect sizes, as has been recently achieved from GWAS of height 18 .
Our results demonstrate that the biology of BP is highly complex and polygenic, influenced by thousands of SNPs with extremely subtle effect sizes.In aggregate, these associations explain large differences in average BP and have a very strong influence on the risk of hypertension.Understanding the heritable influences on BP has the potential to provide foreknowledge of severe hypertension and its sequelae 19,20 .This study is, therefore, another key step toward understanding one of the most complex and highly regulated biological systems in humans that has significant implications for health, disease treatment and prevention.
We used a novel Bayesian method that fits genome-wide SNPs as random effects with a multi-component functionally informed prior for the PRS calculation 15 .These SBayesRC PRSs showed striking improvements in %VE for the different BP traits compared to the standard clumping and thresholding method, which includes only a subset of SNPs with ascertainment.For example, the SBayesRC PRS for SBP explained 65.4% of its common SNP-based heritability.This is more than double the 26.8% of the SBP h 2 SNP explained and previously reported 5 .The remarkable improvement in the variance explained for all BP traits suggests a complex genetic architecture with common causal variants enriched in functionally important genomic regions.Even though we demonstrate that a large proportion of the genetic variance in BP is discoverable by GWAS, another gap remains between the common-variant-based heritability and the total pedigree-based h 2 estimates that were recently reported to range from 25-30% for SBP, DBP and PP 21 .This gap is probably attributable to rare variants, as has been reported recently for height and body mass index (BMI) on the basis of whole genome sequencing data 22 .Rare variants associated with BP have been recently reported from separate large-scale exome-chip analyses 23 .
Application of the SBayesRC PRS in an external independent study (Lifelines), comparing top versus bottom deciles of the PRS distribution, demonstrated large BP differences; for example, 16.9 mmHg for SBP and 7.3-fold increased odds of hypertension.AUROC analyses indicated significant improvement in discrimination and calibration with the PRS included in the predictive model for hypertension.The observed negative predictive value of 91.6% for the full model Youden index cut-off demonstrates accurate discrimination of false negatives, an important goal in the classification of hypertension susceptibility.The improved performance of our PRS may allow for the identification of causal contributions of BP for many hypertension-related diseases.Furthermore, we found that the addition of the PRS to the model significantly improved the classification of hypertension.Nonetheless, the clinical utility of even our improved PRS will remain limited, given the uncertainty in individual PRS estimation for complex traits including hypertension as shown in a recent publication 24 .
In addition to mapping genomic locations, our pathway analyses also demonstrate the complexity of BP biology from the vast number of biological pathways enriched by BP genes.Furthermore, we show that many loci are associated with BP traits through regulatory effects on gene expression.We identified significant colocalized associations between BP traits and genetically predicted gene expression of 1,070 genes, 500 of which have not been identified in prior BP-GWAS.Of these 500 genes, 314 remain novel, at the time of submission, after updated searches within the GWAS Catalog and cross-referencing with a recently published list of prioritized BP genes from a post-GWAS candidate gene prioritization study 10 .
These new gene observations can provide opportunities for further experimentation in model systems and elucidate candidate targets for drug development or repurposing.
Among novel loci, TMPRSS6 (rs855791; PP P = 3.20 × 10 −8 ) is a promising candidate as a potential drug target.This gene, encoding transmembrane serine protease 6, has been implicated in the Article https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-024-01714-wattenuation of dietary iron overload in heart tissue leading to cardioprotective effects 25,26 .Genetic variation at TMPRSS6 is also associated with biomarkers of iron overload 27 .SMAD7 (rs72917789; SBP P = 1.14 × 10 −8 ) has been shown to modulate the expression of hepcidin, a key regulator of intestinal iron absorption 28,29 .Additionally, GSTM1 (rs36209093; DBP P = 9.94 × 10 −15 ), encoding glutathione S-transferase Mu 1, has been implicated in cardiomyopathy resulting from iron overload 30,31 .These results suggest that altered iron metabolism may have a role in BP regulation and hypertension-related cardiovascular disease and are consistent with previous studies linking high iron stores to cardiovascular disease 32 .
Evaluation of the intersection of inferred gene expression and colocalization results with novel and secondary loci highlights several genes targeted by approved medications or with compelling biological evidence supporting their role in BP physiology.ADRA1A, encoding the α−1-adrenergic receptor 1A, the product of which is a well-known target for medications treating both hypertension and hypotension 33 , was previously unreported in BP-GWAS.Considering our conditional analysis and inferred gene expression associations at this locus, cis-regulatory variants for ADRA1 may affect the efficacy of targeted medications.ABCC8, an established diabetes GWAS locus 34 , the product of which is targeted by sulfonylurea medications 35,36 , harbors rare variants contributing to pulmonary arterial hypertension [37][38][39] .FGFR2, targeted by anti-angiogenesis medications in the treatment of cancer 40 , is involved in sexual dimorphism of the baroreflex afferent function on BP regulation in rats 41 and has been implicated in parenchymal and vascular remodeling in pulmonary arterial hypertension 42 .These findings are biologically plausible, and the ADRA1A receptor protein is targeted to manipulate BP, demonstrating that our approach detects genes with biological and pharmacological impact.This suggests that additional genes from our analysis may be viable options for drug targeting and further study.
This study has several limitations.Owing to the large sample size, independent study samples to replicate our findings in a more traditional two-stage design are not readily available, so it is not possible to report loci with formal validation as has been done for previous two-stage BP-GWAS analyses.We have attempted to address this limitation by implementing robust reporting criteria appropriate for a single-stage discovery analysis, with rigorous post-quality-control (QC) filtering of the meta-analysis data, requiring full concordance in the direction of novel SNP effects across all four datasets in the meta-analysis in addition to no evidence of heterogeneity across these four datasets, and highlighting SNP results that meet a higher 5 × 10 −9 significance threshold.Owing to the available GWAS datasets, our study is restricted to the analysis of common variants only with MAF > 1%, but it is important for future analyses to consider both common and rare variants, especially now with sample sizes exceeding one million individuals.
Although our discovery GWAS was limited to non-Hispanic white participants, we provide plots to illustrate the concordance of the effects of BP variants in Japanese and African individuals.As the levels of correlation vary between the comparisons with Japanese versus African ancestries and between novel versus known loci, it highlights the importance of further testing of BP variants derived from European studies within different non-European populations in the future, to clarify which genetic signals are shared and which may have ancestry-specific effects 43 .
We do show a significant association of our European-derived PRS with BP and hypertension in an African-American sample.However, the nominal increases in AUROC or NRI statistics when adding the PRS into hypertension-prediction models in African-American individuals shows that substantial studies that include individuals of non-European ancestry, or alternative methodological approaches 44 , are essential to understand ancestrally related disparities in hypertension, observations that mirror those for other complex traits 45,46 .
Our study results suggest that efforts should continue for future BP-GWAS to leverage large-scale biobank resources and cohort studies to expand the sample size further, as well as extending to diverse ancestries.The benefits of this approach may include improved homogeneity of associations if the data are collected under uniform conditions, as in the UKB 47 .Our data also show high concordance in GWAS results between studies of different designs (Supplementary Fig. 14), supporting a continuing role for the inclusion of large electronic health record (EHR)-derived studies within meta-analysis projects.Future studies should also continue to evaluate associations with genetically predicted gene expression to stimulate other avenues of investigation.These goals, if accomplished, will provide researchers with translational knowledge to mitigate disparities and reduce the global impact of health outcomes for which hypertension is a highly common risk factor.

Online content
Any methods, additional references, Nature Portfolio reporting summaries, source data, extended data, supplementary information, acknowledgements, peer review information; details of author contributions and competing interests; and statements of data and code availability are available at https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-024-01714-w.
Publisher's note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made.The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material.If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Methods
We conducted a single-stage BP-GWAS meta-analysis of individuals of European ancestry, evaluating common SNPs, as the GWAS summary statistics data used had already previously been filtered to MAF ≥ 1%.SBP, DBP and PP GWAS summary statistics from each study were obtained from linear regression models analyzing SNP associations adjusted for age at BP measurement, age 2 , sex, BMI and the top ten genetic principal components.Inferences were limited to SNPs with imputation quality (INFO) scores of 0.1 or higher, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium P values of ≥1 × 10 −6 and MAF ≥ 1%.PP was calculated in each study as the difference between SBP and DBP.

Study populations
The total sample size for this investigation was up to 1,028,980 adults from the meta-analysis of four existing BP-GWAS datasets: UKB, ICBP, MVP and BioVU.Characteristics of these studies are presented in Supplementary Table 24.We acknowledge the different demographics of MVP, being predominantly male (only 7.1% female compared to 58.4% and 54.2% for BioVU and UKB, respectively), and note the higher proportion of individuals taking anti-hypertensive medication (48.9% and 59.5% for MVP and BioVU, respectively, compared to only 20.6% for UKB) probably because the data were drawn from EHR data within a clinical environment.ICBP is a large meta-analysis of 77 studies; therefore, descriptive characteristics were not available.More detailed information on study populations is provided in the Supplementary Notes.

Study-level QC
We applied a harmonized QC procedure for each BP trait in all four studies (that is, 12 GWAS datasets in total) using the GWASInspector R package 48 .The 1000 Genomes Project reference panel 49 , supplemented with the Haplotype Reference Consortium data panel [50][51][52][53] , was used as the reference dataset for appropriate flipping and/or switching of the alleles, checking for allele frequency concordance with the 1000 Genomes reference, annotating dbSNP rs accession numbers and constructing harmonized identifiers for meta-analyses.Allele frequency differences between the reference and individual GWAS data were not used for filtering the variants unless an unexplained off-diagonal cross line could be distinguished in the correlation scatterplot.In this case, we used a difference of 0.25 between the reference and individual GWAS data as the cut-off to filter out variants with seemingly flipped alleles.This was the case for only a very small number of variants within the MVP cohort, requiring the removal of about 12,000 SNPs (<0.15% of the data).SNP effect sizes from ICBP were considered as the reference to validate the reported effect sizes from the other three GWAS datasets (Supplementary Figs.15-17) 7,54 .
The following criteria were then used for filtering the GWAS datasets: (1) SNPs only (that is, no insertions or deletions, copy number variants, and so forth); (2) MAF ≥ 1%; (3) INFO scores greater than 0.1; (4) Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium P ≥ 1 × 10 −6 .Effective sample size was calculated as the product of the total sample size and INFO for each SNP.

Meta-analysis
We initially applied LDSR 14 to the summary statistics for three of our four component datasets (UKB, MVP and BioVU) to calculate the LDSR intercepts that were used to correct for pre-meta-analysis genomic inflation.ICBP summary statistics, as a meta-analysis of 77 independent cohorts, were previously corrected for genomic inflation 5 .HapMap3 (ref.55) SNP alleles and pre-calculated LD scores from 1000 Genomes Project 49 European reference data supplied with the package were used to calculate LDSR intercepts.Observed LDSR intercepts for SBP, DBP and PP, respectively were as follows for each dataset: 1.2177, 1.2195 and 1.1851 for UKB; 1.0530, 1.0247 and 1.0413 for MVP; and 1.0288, 1.0127 and 1.0207 for BioVU.Inverse variance-weighted fixed-effects meta-analysis of common (MAF ≥ 0.01) bi-allelic SNPs with INFO scores greater than or equal to 0.1 across our four studies was performed using METAL 56 software.No further GC correction was applied to the meta-analysis results, which combined our four datasets.

QC of the meta-analysis results
Similar to study-level QC, we used the GWASInspector R package 48 to ensure standardization and perform QC of post-meta-analysis summary statistics.Analyses included checks of allele frequency concordance with the 1000 Genomes reference and concordance of effect sizes with ICBP (Supplementary Fig. 18) as well as evaluation of Q-Q plots and genomic inflation factors (Supplementary Fig. 18) and evaluation of bivariate scatterplots of key summary statistics to identify patterns indicating the presence of low-quality SNPs (Supplementary Fig. 19).
These analyses revealed the presence of SNPs in our data with low effective sample sizes and large standard errors as well as a sub-peak of SNPs with higher effective sample sizes and large standard errors.Based on these observations, we applied a filtering threshold for SNPs that were present in at least three of our four studies or SNPs that reached an effective sample size greater than or equal to 60% of the maximum (Supplementary Figs.20-22).Application of these criteria to achieve an optimal balance between the quality of retained SNPs and sample size resulted in 7,584,058 SNPs available for analysis.

Distinguishing known from novel loci
Published BP SNPs.We collated published BP-GWAS and compiled all 3,800 unique BP SNPs reported to date (Supplementary Tables 5  and 25).In many BP-GWAS papers, the list of previously reported BP variants has focused on the lead sentinel variant, with validated evidence from independent replication.To expand to a fully comprehensive list of known variants, we curated a list of all published common and rare variants, including results from studies conducted in non-European ancestries, all types of methodological analyses including interaction analyses, results from both one-stage and two-stage study designs, and secondary variants reported from conditional or fine-mapping analyses.We began with the list of all 984 SNPs from the total of 901 previously known and novel loci previously reported 5 , then added (1) any secondary SNPs reported from conditional analyses in publications up to 2018 (refs.5,7,9,57); (2) SNPs reported from a large one-stage discovery analysis before 2018 (ref.8); (3) SNPs reported in a previous publication from 2019 (ref.4) and all other SNPs from GWAS published between 2018 and the end of 2020 (refs.23,58-63).We removed duplicated SNPs to generate a unique set of ~3,800 SNPs.Subsequent checks of our results in GWAS Catalog 64 and PhenoScanner 65 confirmed that all published BP variants had been successfully captured.For QC purposes, we compared the allele frequencies and the resulting effect estimates of these published SNPs in our GWAS meta-analysis data with the published data.LD analyses.LD was calculated using PLINK-2 (ref.66) with 1000 Genomes Project 49 phase 3 version 5 European reference genotypes.LD proxies were captured for the ~3,800 previously reported BP SNPs at an r 2 threshold of >0.8 and a maximum distance of 500 kb.Furthermore, we identified the most strongly associated SNP within 500 kb of each known SNP regardless of LD (that is, 'distance proxies').The strongest trait-specific associations of these previously reported SNPs, their best LD proxies and best distance proxies in our meta-analyses are presented in Supplementary Table 6.
We partitioned our data into known and unknown subsets.To identify the 'unknown' portion of our GWAS results, we removed previously reported SNPs, SNPs within 500 kb of previously reported SNPs, LD proxies for previously reported SNPs at an r 2 threshold of >0.1 and a maximum distance of 5 Mb, and SNPs within the human leukocyte antigen region of chromosome 6 (25-34 Mb) from each of our meta-analyses.Q-Q plots of all SNPs versus unknown SNPs are shown in Supplementary Fig. 23.

Article
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-024-01714-w of their respective traits and modeled the joint effect of the PRS for SBP and DBP for hypertension analyses.Then we applied linear and logistic regression with adjustment for sex to compare BP levels and risk of hypertension, respectively, in all deciles versus the bottom decile of the PRS distribution of 10,210 Lifelines individuals.We also compared BP levels and risk of hypertension, respectively, in all deciles versus the middle deciles of the PRS distribution.P values were calculated from the normal distribution for BP traits and from a chi-squared distribution with two degrees of freedom for hypertension.

Hypertension model performance and calibration in Lifelines
Hypertension-prediction model discrimination and calibration were examined by calculating the AUROC 73,74 and Brier score 75,76 , respectively.Discrimination AUROC quantifies the ability of a model to classify cases and controls correctly, and specifically is the probability that a randomly chosen case will have a higher posterior probability of being a case than a randomly chosen control.Calibration quantifies the similarity of the posterior probability of being a case with the observed proportion of cases in that quantile of the ranked posterior probabilities from the model.These analyses were implemented using the pROC R package 77 with tenfold cross-validation to mitigate overfitting, which occurs when predictions are made using the same data on which the model parameters were estimated.An AUROC value of 0.5 indicates no discrimination or random classification, while a value of 1 is perfect discrimination or perfect classification.The Brier score is the average squared difference between predicted probability and observed outcome, with values approaching zero indicating high calibration.The cut-off value of hypertension odds to predict high risk were identified using the Youden index (max(sensitivity + specificity)), the point on the AUROC at which sensitivity and specificity are maximized.Other cut-off points could be chosen to maximize performance for other parameters, but the Youden index is a reasonable starting point that balances several aspects of predictive performance.Statistics were calculated for two models: a model including covariates used in GWAS meta-analyses (sex, age, age 2 , BMI; model 1); and a model including covariates and PRS for SBP and DBP (model 2).We also calculated the NRI to indicate what proportion of the subjects are reclassified as high-risk or low-risk when the PRSs are added to the model.

Comparison of restricted maximum likelihood methods to calculate heritability
The h 2 SNP of BP traits has previously been calculated within the n ~ 457,000 UKB cohort GWAS dataset using the restricted maximum likelihood (REML) method BOLT-REML v2. 3 (ref.78); for example, with h 2 SNP = 21.3% for SBP 5 .To check the consistency across different software and to compare to previously published results, we calculated h 2 SNP of SBP within the UKB BP-GWAS dataset using GCTA-GREML 69 .The full imputed genetic data was converted from BGEN dosage format into hard-call genotyped PLINK format.SNPs were filtered according to MAF > 1% and high imputation quality with INFO ≥ 0.9 from the central UKB QC and then restricted to only the set of SNPs present in our full meta-analysis dataset.Owing to the high amount of RAM that GCTA software requires, we selected a representative subset from UKB for our analysis.We calculated percentiles of principal components PC1 and PC2 of all individuals from the centrally provided UKB QC data and extracted the most homogeneous subset of individuals centered around the median data points with both PC1 and PC2 within the 40-60th percentile range, resulting in a subset sample size of n = 19,410.Within GCTA, the genetic relatedness matrix was generated for each autosome separately, then merged together and filtered for relatedness according to a 0.2 cut-off to remove any first-degree and second-degree relatives.Then h 2 SNP for SBP was calculated with adjustment of the same covariates applied to the UKB BP-GWAS; namely sex, age, age 2 , BMI, genotyping chip array and the top ten PCs.One-tailed P values were calculated according to the h 2 SNP and standard error results in base R.
This SNP-based heritability analysis of SBP in the small subset of the UKB data (n = 19,410) yielded an h 2 SNP estimate of 22.8%, which is consistent with the estimate of 21.3% reported previously 5 using BOLT-REML, demonstrating that the GCTA-GREML approach is also appropriate to use for calculation of heritability within our other smaller Lifelines cohort.

Heritability analyses in Lifelines data
We used GCTA-GREML 16 to calculate h 2 SNP for BP in the same Lifelines dataset as in the %VE analyses (n = 10,210).SNPs in Lifelines were restricted to the same list of SNPs used in the UKB GCTA-GREML 16 analyses.Then h 2 SNP for SBP, DBP and PP was calculated with adjustment of sex, age, age 2 , BMI and ten PCs.

BP-GWAS in African-Americans from All-Of-Us (n = 21,843)
We performed regression association tests with additive models for untransformed medication-adjusted BP traits (SBP, DBP, PP) and hypertension case or control status using HAIL (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6807412).Models were adjusted for age, age 2 , sex at birth, BMI and ten PCs.For quantitative BP traits, age at median SBP was used.Age at first hypertension ICD9/10 code was used for cases with a hypertension phecode, and age at median SBP measurement was used for controls and cases with only anti-hypertensive medication use.Sex was restricted to male or female at birth.BMI on the date of, or nearest to, median SBP measurement was extracted from the EHR and was restricted to the range of 10-100 kg m −2 .

Association of BP variants in other ancestries
We looked up the lead SNP at each of the 2,103 BP-associated loci reported in our European meta-analysis, within two different non-European ancestry samples.We extracted results from a BP-GWAS on over 145,000 individuals from the JBB 79 .We also performed a new African-ancestry BP-GWAS meta-analysis (AA-meta) comprising n = 83,890 African-ancestry individuals from four different datasets: UKB (n = 3,277), BioVU (n = 9,277) and MVP (n = 49,493) with existing GWAS results; plus results from a new BP-GWAS that we conducted in n = 21,843 African-American ancestry individuals from the All-Of-Us cohort.Of the total 2,103 SNPs, 1,671 and 2,102 were available and 1,613 and 2,092 SNPs remained in the JBB and AA-meta-datasets, respectively, after excluding any SNPs that were rare (MAF < 0.01) in either of the non-European datasets, for comparison of common SNPs only.We then compared the allele frequencies and the effect sizes between our European meta-analysis and each of the two non-European datasets by calculating Pearson correlations and the percentage of concordance in the direction of SNP effects.We used only the best associated BP trait for each SNP with the same trait from the non-European dataset and performed our comparisons for novel, secondary and known SNPs separately.

BP PRS association analyses in African-American ancestry
To evaluate to what extent BP PRSs were predictive for hypertension in non-European ancestry individuals, we performed analyses of our European ancestry PRS within an African-American ancestry sample (n = 21,843) from the All-Of-Us cohort.We conducted the same PRS analysis pipeline as used for the European Lifelines cohort (Methods).

In silico transcriptome-wide association study
Genetically predicted gene expression analysis.Our in silico transcriptome-wide association study of inferred gene expression was performed using S-PrediXcan 80 , an approach that imputes genetically predicted gene expression in a given tissue and tests predicted expression for association with a GWAS outcome using SNP-level summary statistics.For this study, input included summary statistics from each of the meta-analyses (SBP, DBP and PP) and gene-expression references for five tissues from GTEx 81 v.7 including aorta, tibial artery, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-024-01714-wleft ventricle, atrial appendage and whole blood.Our analyses incorporated covariance matrices based on 1000 Genomes 49 European populations to account for LD structure.The Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold was 1.55 × 10 −6 to account for the total number of gene models assessed across all tissues in these analyses.
Colocalization analysis.The hypothesis that a single variant underlies GWAS and eQTL associations at a given locus (that is, colocalization) was tested using COLOC 82 , a Bayesian gene-level test that evaluates GWAS and eQTL association summary statistics at each SNP at the locus and provides gene-level and SNP-level posterior probabilities for colocalization.For this analysis, inputs included results for common variants in our study and eQTL summary statistics corresponding to the gene-expression references used in the S-PrediXcan analysis, restricting to only variants included in the S-PrediXcan models.Output includes posterior probabilities for the null hypothesis (PP.H 0 ) that SNPs at the locus are associated with neither gene expression nor the outcome (that is SBP, DBP or PP), the first alternative hypothesis (PP.H 1 ) that SNPs are associated with expression but not the outcome, the second alternative hypothesis (PP.H 2 ) that SNPs are associated with the outcome but not expression, the third alternative hypothesis (PP.H 3 ) that SNPs are associated with both expression and the outcome but not colocalized and the fourth alternative hypothesis (PP.H 4 ) that SNPs associated with both expression and the outcome are colocalized.Also included are annotations of the SNPs with the highest PP.H 4 at each locus and the corresponding posterior probability.A PP.H 4 of greater than 90% was considered evidence of colocalization.
Pathway analyses.Downstream analyses were performed using the functional mapping and annotation of genome-wide association studies (FUMA-GWAS) 17,83 online software tool.The list of all 1,070 genes from the inferred gene expression analyses that were significant from S-PrediXcan and filtered after the colocalization and eQTL analyses was used as the input into FUMA, and Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) v.7 was used as the gene expression dataset.All other parameters selected were chosen to be consistent with the options used for the S-PrediXcan analysis.We conducted FUMA analyses for tissue specificity tests and for gene set enrichment analyses to yield pathway analysis results according to different pathway datasets: KEGG, Reactome and WikiPathways.Four different analyses were performed according to different BP traits: a 'unified' analysis based on the list of all unique significant genes across all three BP traits and three trait-specific analyses for each of SBP, DBP and PP.When presenting the outputs, the adjusted P value results take multiple testing into account, and all results tables are filtered by adjusted P < 0.05.

A description of all covariates tested A description of any assumptions or corrections, such as tests of normality and adjustment for multiple comparisons A full description of the statistical parameters including central tendency (e.g. means) or other basic estimates (e.g. regression coefficient) AND variation (e.g. standard deviation) or associated estimates of uncertainty (e.g. confidence intervals)
For null hypothesis testing, the test statistic (e.g.F t r P ,,) with conGive P values as exact values whenever suitable.

Ethics oversight
Our study is based on analysis of previously published, publicly available data for which appropriate site-specific Institutional Review Boards and ethical review at local institutions have previously approved use of this data.
Note that full information on the approval of the study protocol must also be provided in the manuscript.

Field-specific reporting
Please select the one below that is the best fit for your research.If you are not sure, read the appropriate sections before making your selection.

Life sciences Behavioural & social sciences Ecological, evolutionary & environmental sciences
For a reference copy of the document with all sections, see nature.com/documents/nr-reporting-summary-flat.pdf

Life sciences study design
All studies must disclose on these points even when the disclosure is negative.

Sample size
No sample size calculations were performed, because we were not generating any new study data.All analyses used previously existing datasets from our consortia.Total sample size of our GWAS was obtained by combining together 4 existing GWAS datasets into a single large-scale meta-analysis.The sample sizes of these existing datasets are described in the Online Methods.With a total sample size of N>1 million, this is clearly sufficient, and indeed the largest single-stage GWAS for BP to-date.The sample size of the independent Lifelines cohort, used for secondary analyses is described in the Online Methods, and is based on the availability of a well-characterized, large-scale population cohort, appropriate for the validation of genetic associations.
Data exclusions SNPs were excluded from the meta-analysis in our QC according to our QC criteria, and performed by the GWASInspector R package -all details provided in the Online Methods

Replication
This is designed as a single-stage meta-analysis, in order to achieve the largest BP-GWAS sample size to-date, exceeding 1 million individuals.Hence there is no replication stage.Therefore, reporting criteria were adjusted accordingly, e.g. with a more stringent primary reporting significance threshold of 5x10^-9, and concordant effect direction in all 4 data subsets.
Randomization n/a.This is a GWAS meta-analysis of 4 existing GWAS datasets.Each individual GWAS dataset is obtained by linear regression (meta-)analysis of BP levels as a continues variable against DNA genotypes in all cohort participants as a single group.Hence no case-control design is used and no randomization to assign people to different groups is required.
Blinding n/a.This is a GWAS meta-analysis of 4 existing GWAS datasets.Again, no group assigning is performed so as to necessiate blinding people from this matter.

nature portfolio | reporting summary
March 2021

Files in database submission
Provide a list of all files available in the database submission.
Genome browser session (e.g.UCSC Provide a link to an anonymized genome browser session for "Initial submission" and "Revised version" documents only, to enable peer review.Write "no longer applicable" for "Final submission" documents.

Methodology
Replicates Describe the experimental replicates, specifying number, type and replicate agreement.

Sequencing depth
Describe the sequencing depth for each experiment, providing the total number of reads, uniquely mapped reads, length of reads and whether they were paired-or single-end.

Antibodies
Describe the antibodies used for the ChIP-seq experiments; as applicable, provide supplier name, catalog number, clone name, and lot number.
Peak calling parameters Specify the command line program and parameters used for read mapping and peak calling, including the ChIP, control and index files used.

Data quality
Describe the methods used to ensure data quality in full detail, including how many peaks are at FDR 5% and above 5-fold enrichment.

Software
Describe the software used to collect and analyze the ChIP-seq data.For custom code that has been deposited into a community repository, provide accession details.

Flow Cytometry Plots
Confirm that: The axis labels state the marker and fluorochrome used (e.g.CD4-FITC).
The axis scales are clearly visible.Include numbers along axes only for bottom left plot of group (a 'group' is an analysis of identical markers).
All plots are contour plots with outliers or pseudocolor plots.
A numerical value for number of cells or percentage (with statistics) is provided.

Methodology Sample preparation
Describe the sample preparation, detailing the biological source of the cells and any tissue processing steps used.

Instrument
Identify the instrument used for data collection, specifying make and model number.

Software
Describe the software used to collect and analyze the flow cytometry data.For custom code that has been deposited into a community repository, provide accession details.

Cell population abundance
Describe the abundance of the relevant cell populations within post-sort fractions, providing details on the purity of the samples and how it was determined.

Gating strategy
Describe the gating strategy used for all relevant experiments, specifying the preliminary FSC/SSC gates of the starting cell population, indicating where boundaries between "positive" and "negative" staining cell populations are defined.
Tick this box to confirm that a figure exemplifying the gating strategy is provided in the Supplementary Information.

Magnetic resonance imaging Experimental design
Design type Indicate task or resting state; event-related or block design.

Design specifications
Specify the number of blocks, trials or experimental units per session and/or subject, and specify the length of each trial or block (if trials are blocked) and interval between trials.

Behavioral performance measures
State number and/or type of variables recorded (e.g.correct button press, response time) and what statistics were used to establish that the subjects were performing the task as expected (e.g.mean, range, and/or standard deviation across subjects).

Fig. 1 |
Fig. 1 | Manhattan plots of SBP, DBP and PP GWAS meta-analyses, illustrating 113 novel loci.Manhattan plots from top to bottom show novel results of SBP, DBP and PP GWAS meta-analysis, respectively, using inverse variance-weighted method.All loci are reported at genome-wide significance threshold (5 × 10 −8 ).Annotated in red are loci reaching the more stringent P value of 5 × 10 −9 .

Fig. 2 |
Fig. 2 | Relationship of deciles of the SBayesRC PRSs with SBP and DBP and risk of hypertension in European ancestry individuals from Lifelines cohort (n = 10,210).a,b, Plots show sex-adjusted SBP and DBP (a) and sex-adjusted

Fig. 3 |
Fig. 3 | Relationship of deciles of the SBayesRC PRSs with SBP and DBP and risk of hypertension in African-American ancestry individuals from All-Of-Us cohort (n = 21,843).a,b, Plots show sex-adjusted mean SBP and DBP (a) and sex-adjusted odds ratios of hypertension (b) comparing each of the upper nine PRS deciles with the lowest decile.Dotted lines represent mean; error bars, s.e.m. in a and 95% CI in b.
Article https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-024-01714-wExtended Data Fig. 2 | Comparison of the newly discovered loci with the known loci in effect size distribution.Comparison of the newly discovered loci with the known loci in effect size distribution, plotting Minor Allele Frequency (MAF) on the x-axis, vs GWAS effect estimate size on the y-axis, from the meta-analysis for SBP (a), DBP (b), PP (c).
Article https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-024-01714-wExtended Data Fig. 3 | Variance explained by Polygenic Risk Scores (PRSs) at different P value thresholds.Variance explained by clumping and threshold Polygenic Risk Scores (PRSs) at different P value thresholds of inverse variance-weighted meta-analysis results, for SBP, DBP and PP, in the independent Lifelines cohort data.
Article https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-024-01714-wExtended Data Fig. 4 | Relationship of deciles of the SBayesRC PRS with Pulse Pressure (PP) in Lifelines.Relationship of deciles of the SBayesRC PRS with Pulse Pressure (PP) in Lifelines of European ancestry (n = 10,210).Plot shows sex-adjusted mean PP comparing each of the upper nine PRS deciles with the lowest decile.Dotted lines represent 95% confidence intervals.
Article https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-024-01714-wExtended Data Fig. 5 | Area under the ROC curve of the two models for Hypertension prediction in Lifelines.Area under the ROC curve (AUROC) of the two models (covariates only and covariates plus SBayesRC PRS) for Hypertension prediction in Lifelines (n = 10,210) cohort of European ancestry.
Article https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-024-01714-wExtended Data Fig. 6 | Pairwise allele frequency and effect size comparisons of 2103 GRS SNPs between our Mega-meta results and Japan Biobank.Pairwise allele frequency (a) and effect size (b) comparisons of 2103 GRS SNPs between our Mega-meta results and Japan Biobank ( JBB) (n∼145k).Comparisons are separately made for the 113 novel SNPs ('Novel'), 267 additional novel SNPs from conditional analysis ('Secondary'), and 1723 known SNPs ('Known').Black, red and blue represent SNPs with SBP, DBP, and PP as the best associated traits, respectively.r = Pearson's Correlation coefficient.'concordant' means the proportion of SNPs showing directional concordance between European and Japanese populations.Please note that JBB effect sizes are standardized by Z-score transformation.

Table 4 | Variance explained in SBP, DBP and PP for all four GRSs, the clumping and thresholding PRS and the SBayesRC PRS analyzed in an independent Lifelines dataset (n = 10,210) of European-descent individuals
SBP, systolic blood pressure; DBP, diastolic blood pressure; PP, pulse pressure; VE, variance explained by the risk score for the respective BP trait expressed as a percentage; P value, two-sided association P value for the risk score with the respective blood pressure trait; PRS, polygenic risk score.

Table 5 | Prioritized genes through converging evidence across analyses TWAS a
Portfolio wishes to improve the reproducibility of the work that we publish.This form provides structure for consistency and transparency in reporting.For further information on Nature Portfolio policies, see our Editorial Policies Editorial Policy Checklist Statistics For all statistical analyses, confirm that the following items are present in the figure legend, table legend, main text, or Methods section.A statement on whether measurements were taken from distinct samples or whether the same sample was measured repeatedlyThe statistical test(s) used AND whether they are one-or two-sided Only common tests should be described solely by name; describe more complex techniques in the Methods section. Nature manuscripts utilizing custom algorithms or software that are central to the research but not yet described in published literature, software must be made available to editors and reviewers.We strongly encourage code deposition in a community repository (e.g.GitHub).See the Nature Portfolio guidelines for submitting code & software /www.pgscatalog.org/).Summary statistics for sentinel SNPs for each BP-trait, as well as optimized PRS, are also available here in Supplementary Tables.Statistically significant reports for S-PrediXcan results for all 5 tissues for all BP-traits evaluated are also made available in the Supplementary Tables."Uponacceptance of the paper, we will make the following data publicly available: -full GWAS summary statistics, e.g. on GWAS-catalog website -PRS data, e.g. on the PGScatalog website GWAS catalog, Phenoscanner, and GTEx datasets analyzed in this manuscript are all publicly available at https://www.ebi.ac.uk/gwas/, http:// www.phenoscanner.medschl.cam.ac.uk/, and https://gtexportal.org/home/,respectively.Human research participants Policy information about studies involving human research participants and Sex and Gender in Research.Reporting on sex and gender all datasets in alll analyses include both males and females.As part of genetic data QC, genetically inferred sex is compared versus self-reported gender.Population characteristicsDemographic characteristics of subjects (age, sex, BMI, BP, HTN prevalence, etc.) within all 4 studies included in the metaanalysis are presented in Supplementary Tables.Full details of the independent Lifelines cohort, used for secondary analyses is described in the Online Methods.Demographics of the AllofUS cohort is provided in the supplementary tables.RecruitmentNo new participants were recruited.This meta-analysis uses 4 existing datasets, plus the independent Lifelines cohort, plus other non-European datasets, used for secondary analyses.Details of subject recruitment are provided for each study in the Online Methods.
For -Accession codes, unique identifiers, or web links for publicly available datasets -A description of any restrictions on data availability -For clinical datasets or third party data, please ensure that the statement adheres to our policyUpdated Data Availability Statement in the manuscript: "Full GWAS summary statistics of our meta-analyses is publicly available on the GWAS Catalog website data repository (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/gwas/) with data accession codes GCST90310294, GCST90310295, and GCST90310296 for SBP, DBP, and PP, respectively.The PRS data will also be deposited on the PGS Catalog nature portfolio | reporting summary